all forms of welfare have got to go

[Serapis]

Last year I have "earned" less than half of the money I realy earned.
mietla

Wow, you're in a 50+%tax bracket and every cent of your tax dollars is going to support a welfare family? I'd be upset too...

Some of that money, as 715 pointed out, just may go for things like this:

Military Waste

More Corp Welfare

Charon

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[Karnak]

mieleta,

You're living in a dream world (or nightmare world) if you think welfare recipients can approach the lifestyle of somebody who makes so much that they pay more than half their income in taxes.

Actually, I'd like to know how you managed that.  The combined state and federal taxes should peak at less than 50%.

My mom owned her house, and needed assistance, but because she owned it she didn't qualify.

I kept her and my siblings housed.  I bought the house to keep it from being repossed.  I am spending my future and my ability to start a family of my own in order to keep my mom and siblings housed. I get no assistance from the government to do so.

Is that fair?  No, but its the way things are.  Of course I get accused of being a liberal just looking for a hand out by the likes of the conservatives on this BB even though I kept my mom off the government rolls.

Keep in mind how many businesses in poor rural and urban areas would fail if welfare was canceled.  Many of the customers in those areas are welfare recipients.  Whenever you remove money from a system there will be greater unemployment, at least in the short term.

[MrBill]

Originally posted by Karnak:


Actually, I'd like to know how you managed that.  The combined state and federal taxes should peak at less than 50%.

Bzzzztttt Wrong
Add up, sometime, what is deducted from your paycheck (no matter what they call it if you can not refuse to have it taken out it is a tax of some sort).  Divide this by your total earnings and you get your raw "VISIBLE" tax bite.  Now most states have a sales tax, (you can find this out by taking the % against the total amount you spend in a year). THEN, many things/products you buy have added taxes you don't see, Gas, Tobacco products, airline/concert tickets, motel/hotel bed tax, cars, etc. etc.  In real life you need not be in the top "federal" tax bracket to pay 50% taxes in this country, starting about 1964-65 the Govt. (Federal state and local) started the "hidden tax bites in a big way, and it is getting worse.  But now they have taken to calling them user fees and other assorted pc crud. Uncle Ronnie's Tax reforms (no matter which side of that issue you are on) took away most of the former "Rich Folks deductions", so even though the "rate" went down taxes increased. (and folks thought it was all those new burger flippers on the tax roles.  
And I'm not even about to get into the paying taxes on taxes you pay issue.
  I topped the 50% bracket during the Carter years and am still there even though retired.  Do I wish to see half of all I worked for and paid taxes on go to the fed (death tax) when I die ... Yea right.  Then the kids can go on welfare ... ahhh what's the use.

New laws needed

4) Congress may never spend more money than the govt. took in the    previous year. Except for time of national emergency.
3) 10% of all govt. revenue MUST be budgeted to pay down the national debt if any.
2) Elected Federal Officials are paid (along with all benefits) by the    States that send them to Washington.
1) Anyone who wishes to run for political office can't. This would get em  

[mietla]

Originally posted by Karnak:
mieleta,

You're living in a dream world (or nightmare world) if you think welfare recipients can approach the lifestyle of somebody who makes so much that they pay more than half their income in taxes.

Of course I'm not saying that the welfare recipient live as good as the rest of us. I was trying to show the scope of the problem. A half of my income is confiscated but only a small portion of it is used for legitimate government activities.

 

Actually, I'd like to know how you managed that.  The combined state and federal taxes should peak at less than 50%.

+ gasoline tax, + property tax, + local taxes, + sales tax, + phone surcharges, + PG&E surcharges +, +, +

[quoteI am spending my future and my ability to start a family of my own in order to keep my mom and siblings housed. I get no assistance from the government to do so.
[/quote]

no medal here. It is your obligation to support your fam,ily, just like it was mine obligation to support mine.


 

Whenever you remove money from a system there will be greater unemployment, at least in the short term.

you don;t remove any money from the system by eliminationg thw welfare. It's just a differnet person who spends it.. the one who earned it!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by 715:


There's welfare for the poor, but then there's welfare for the rich.  Example: there is a new IT contract for the Navy won by a Texas company (whos ads show 'cat herding').  This contract is $7B.  Yes.. that's seven Billion.  Since I work for the Navy, I will be getting a computer off this contract (actually I am forced to whether I need it or not).  It is a Dell.  I went on the Dell web page (for normal acquisitions) and the identical computer is listed at $799.  I am being charged by the Texas contractor $12,000 for this computer (ie my government account is- you, the tax payers, foot the bill).  This is no lie.  It's about $3000 a year and refreshed every 4 years.  Even funnier: if my CURRENT computer, which I (ie you the tax payer again) already paid for, meets the specs- the Texas contractor still charges me $12,000, gives me nothing, lets me keep my current setup, and TAKES POSSESSION of my current computer.  I get reimbursed nothing.  The contract includes internet connection, but even at $40/month for a high speed line that doesn't come to $12,000/4 yrs now does it?  That Texas contractor is making a monster profit: welfare for the rich.

Hmmm... I'm betting that this is NMCI and the company is EDS.

[Karnak]

you don;t remove any money from the system by eliminationg thw welfare. It's just a differnet person who spends it.. the one who earned it!  

Yes, but you're not going to spend it in those areas of the country.  So what you will have is the poorest areas with the highest unemployment will have their unemployment and poverty rates go up.  It will do that in the short term, long term is much harder to see.

Its simply a judgement call on what you think is best.  I wasn't meaning to say one was right or wrong, I was simply pointing out one effect that had not been mentioned.

Out of curiosity, again, what do you think legitimate government expenses are?  I'd be surprised if they don't already absorb the majority of the federal budget.

[mietla]

The Constitution enumerates them pretty well (the defense of the nation being most prominent), and the Tenth amendment forbids the feds to usurp more power.

The feds have no business to meddle with education, environment, welfare, social security, speed limits, the water level in your toilet and the price of the electricity in California.


Less then 25% of the fed's spending is legitimate.

 

[ET]

Comparing welfare in late 1940s and blaming Truman does not fly.In late 40s and 50s people on welfare were embarassed to be on it and were really destitute when they applied.Their homes were inspected on a regular basis by inspectors checking for things like a TV or other things that they were not allowed to have if they were poor.Anybody in my neighborhood that went on welfare were pitied that they had to do it.It was a last resort.The people that were on it did everything they could to get off as soon as they could.
    Now the libs have made it an entitlement that every one earns even if they are not citizens.They have created a dependant class who thinks they are owed by the government and have to be supplied a certain standard of living."I can't work,I have to stay home and raise my children" "I can't work for 9 bucks an hour.it screws up my welfare" Tell that to all the working Moms and folks that do work for those wages.
    The real change in the original welfare came when liberal democrats had control from the 60s to the 80s.They found a way to buy votes without raising campaign funds and this cost every worker in this country a lot of money in taxes.The liberals have stolen the pride of self sufficiency from these people and made beggers out of them.That hurts the entire country.

[Udie]

Originally posted by StSanta:
Career welfare people. Weed these people out and you can drop welfare spendings in half. In political discussions with my Danish friends, I aruge this; but to my dismay, it seems I'm a single uncompassionate capitalistic swinedog surrounded by those with more "human" values. Apparently they mistake my lack of desire to pay for freeloaders for cynicism and no compassion.

DING!!!!

 Now you have an idea what it's like being a conservative in America.  Fork out the money fork out the money fork out the money.... Stop (the realization that your money is going into a gigantic black hole sets in).... I don't want to fork out the money any longer..... American liberal, socialist say "oh you sick evil bastard you want to starve children and kill the elderly! and your a racist!"  When in reality I'm just a single dude trying to get ahead in life, but the government (state and federal) takes over 1/2 my money in taxes.

 Santa,  at least in your country you get something in return for your taxes.  In America it gets squanderred and waisted on absolutely nothing and in some instances literaly disapears off the face of the Earth, defying the laws of phisics that matter can neither be created or destroyed.

 Hell I am actualy entertaining the notion of moving to another country mine's full of idiots. At least I live in Texas. HEHE funny thought,  I don't want to leave Texas but I do want out of the USA.  Texas should exercise our rights!!!  


Udie

[Udie]

Lets stop villainizing the poor...they are
ALREADY SCREWED DUDE...[/QB]

 sorry, the vast majority of them are screwed because they screwed themselves.  If your able bodied there isn't ANY reason you shouldn't work uness your already rich, then you have to work to stay that way.

 I do understand there are people who just don't know what to do. They need to be educated on how to find work or tought a basic skill. Heck give them a ham sandwich and a bag of lay's while their in class this way they don't starve to death. But welfare should suck so much to be on that people who are on it will do almost anything to get off of it. Or let the rich liberals pay for them if they want to.  But G-damnit stop keeping me just obove the squealing poverty level with taxes and "user fees"  

 Udie

[Sandman]

I tell ya... subsistance sucks. It's a lot of work.

My sister in law was ran over by a car when she was two. She is mentally impaired. To add to the problem, she has three children. Yes, THREE children and one of them is also impaired. If you want to get into the birthing rights of people physically or mentally incapable of raising children properly, be my guest. I'm not going to touch it. Anyway... how she got here is not the issue. The issue is the three children. My wife spends an enormous amount of time (in addition to her own job) filing forms and working with county, state, and federal services to make sure that these children get what they need. We have our own family and I cannot afford to support two so the public aid is absolutely necessary.

Anyone smart enough or energetic enough to screw the system over absolutely does not deserve the benefit.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
...We have our own family and I cannot afford to support two ...

Guess what? Nobody asked me, but I am supporting someone's family. Half of what I make is stolen from me and given to someone else.

[Sandman]

Put that way, I should have said I can't afford three.  

[ET]

Sandman
In the case you described,I do not mind at all paying taxes to help.If a worker had an accident and could no longer work at all,I would not mind helping him either.It's the mentally competant,physically able people who need to be weeded out.The one's that are gaming the system.Any one taking government welfare money should work 20 hours a week for that government and take job trainng classes for another 20 hours.Any one that can not or will not do that should be taken off the roles.A town mayor in N.J.once put them to work painting park benches and got slammed by liberals as demeaning these people.
Cases of real need should get real help and the con artists should be told to take a walk.

[Sandman]

FWIW, my sister in law does work for the county... strictly part time and it's less than minimum wage. She's on federal subsistance (social security) so the work for the county doesn't result in lower welfare subsistance paid by the county/state to support her daughters. For her, it's a win/win. Of course, the concessions made for the truly disabled are probably a bit more liberal than those given to the undisabled, unemployed, etc.

Here's the really hard part for my wife. The federal government as determined that her sister is unfit to take care of her own personal finances. Therefore she has a payee, my wife. My wife receives her social security checks and pays the bills: rent, utilities, etc. At the same time, the county/state sends the welfare checks directly to my sister in law, not my wife. It makes absolutely no sense that the is unfit to receive her own check but somehow fit enough to receive the checks for her daughters.